Dartzap wrote:Just popped up on various feeds, no real news beyond that so far.

THat'll be two general elections and two referendums in 4 years. Anyone remember that 'Fixed Term' stuff a few years back?!

She can only do it with a 2/3 majority in parliament because of that - they will have a vote on it tomorrow

As someone who has been stuck negotiating a Brexit that she didn't want, I suppose this is a no brainer. Either she will win an increased majority which will strengthen her hand or they will lose their slim current majority and the whole thing becomes someone else's problem...

That being said, this is an opportunity for Remainers to take some control over the situation. While it might be too late to avoid leaving the EU, should May lose it may be possible to switch over to a "soft brexit" and stay in the EEA.

On the other hand, should May win another majority it will reinforce the mandate for "Hard-Brexit" and hopefully stop some of the squabbling.

Over the past few years, I've become increasingly skeptical of claims that politicians from right-wing political parties do things I loathe because they have to compromise with their own extremists to stay in power.

There comes a point at which the correct response to that situation is to refuse to compromise with the extremists, and either accept the risk that this will result in your ceasing to have power, or give up the power itself and let it be someone else's problem.

Tribble wrote:May should have held an election before triggering Article 50.

That just sounds like a closest demand for a second Brexit vote.

"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956

Tribble wrote:Labour isn't off the hook here though - a lot of their support base supported Brexit and they are going to have to tread pretty carefully.

They are in a pretty tricky situation. Campaigning against Brexit risks revitalising the currently flagging UKIP support in the Labour heartland areas of the Midlands and North that they need to win. Not campaigning against Brexit hands the issue over entirely to the Liberal Democrats who have indicated already that they will campaign on reversing Brexit.

The Lib Dems main problem will be lack of campaign funds. I can't imagine the donations have been coming in recently.

Crazedwraith wrote:depends if they can escape the stigma of the coalition. People I've talked to since then still haven't forgiven them for the various u turns they had to do as part of the coalition.

Ironically the best result they could get in this election would be Conservatives lose their majority and have to go into coalition with LDs again. LDs wouldn't like it but still sounds more feasible than any of the other coalition options.

Tribble wrote:May should have held an election before triggering Article 50.

That just sounds like a closest demand for a second Brexit vote.

Absolutely. The referendum has been held, parliament had its say, and Article 50 has been triggered. That ship has sailed. However, there are different ways that the UK could go about Brexit, and I think a vote on whether or not the UK should go for a "soft Brexit" and remain in the EEA or "Hard Brexit" and exit the single market may be warranted. Given the choice between the two I imagine that "Soft-Brexit" is more likely to win as you'd have all of the Remainers + those Brexit supporters who voted to leave thinking that the UK would stay in the EEA.

Actually, IMO that's how the referendum should have been that from the start- a ranked ballot with "remain in EU" "Remain in EEA" and "Leave both the EU / EEA" as options, vs the "in/out" that they had. While we'll never know for sure, IMO there would have been a good chance that "remain in the EEA" would have won as the consensus choice, and the U.K. would have avoided a lot of the fighting going on right now.

Tribble wrote:
Actually, IMO that's how the referendum should have been that from the start- a ranked ballot with "remain in EU" "Remain in EEA" and "Leave both the EU / EEA" as options, vs the "in/out" that they had. While we'll never know for sure, IMO there would have been a good chance that "remain in the EEA" would have won as the consensus choice, and the U.K. would have avoided a lot of the fighting going on right now.

Without a lot of education which probably wouldn't work that would just lead to huge confusion about what EU and EEA are and what leaving them mean.

Tribble wrote:May should have held an election before triggering Article 50.

That just sounds like a closest demand for a second Brexit vote.

Absolutely. The referendum has been held, parliament had its say, and Article 50 has been triggered. That ship has sailed. However, there are different ways that the UK could go about Brexit, and I think a vote on whether or not the UK should go for a "soft Brexit" and remain in the EEA or "Hard Brexit" and exit the single market may be warranted. Given the choice between the two I imagine that "Soft-Brexit" is more likely to win as you'd have all of the Remainers + those Brexit supporters who voted to leave thinking that the UK would stay in the EEA.

Actually, IMO that's how the referendum should have been that from the start- a ranked ballot with "remain in EU" "Remain in EEA" and "Leave both the EU / EEA" as options, vs the "in/out" that they had. While we'll never know for sure, IMO there would have been a good chance that "remain in the EEA" would have won as the consensus choice, and the U.K. would have avoided a lot of the fighting going on right now.

I doubt the majority of people in Britain could explain the difference between the EU and the EEA to be honest.

I have to say that I applaud this decision on a general principle. Now the people in Britain at least have a choice to vote for a parliament that will shape brexit according to their wishes.

That being said on a personal level I wish this election would not be called when the opposition lacks a credible leader. Corbyn is not going to win vs May.

Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------My LPs

Sea Skimmer wrote:
That just sounds like a closest demand for a second Brexit vote.

Absolutely. The referendum has been held, parliament had its say, and Article 50 has been triggered. That ship has sailed. However, there are different ways that the UK could go about Brexit, and I think a vote on whether or not the UK should go for a "soft Brexit" and remain in the EEA or "Hard Brexit" and exit the single market may be warranted. Given the choice between the two I imagine that "Soft-Brexit" is more likely to win as you'd have all of the Remainers + those Brexit supporters who voted to leave thinking that the UK would stay in the EEA.

Actually, IMO that's how the referendum should have been that from the start- a ranked ballot with "remain in EU" "Remain in EEA" and "Leave both the EU / EEA" as options, vs the "in/out" that they had. While we'll never know for sure, IMO there would have been a good chance that "remain in the EEA" would have won as the consensus choice, and the U.K. would have avoided a lot of the fighting going on right now.

I doubt the majority of people in Britain could explain the difference between the EU and the EEA to be honest.

Even assuming this to be true, that wouldn't alter my point. Had the referendum offered EEA membership as the "middle option" it likely would have won over "hard Brexit". And if there were a referendum on it today it would likely win out over "hard Brexit" as the remain supporters would be boosted by the leave voters who still wanted access to the single market.

Thanas wrote:I have to say that I applaud this decision on a general principle. Now the people in Britain at least have a choice to vote for a parliament that will shape brexit according to their wishes.

That being said on a personal level I wish this election would not be called when the opposition lacks a credible leader. Corbyn is not going to win vs May.

Bedlam wrote:Without a lot of education which probably wouldn't work that would just lead to huge confusion about what EU and EEA are and what leaving them mean.

There already is — I'm not sure if there's ever been a study on how many people still think not much has changed since we joined the Common Market (as it was then) in 1973. I certainly can't remember when the EU name started being used.

Crazedwraith wrote:That would require a politician with principles though.

No, they have principles. It's just that their principles are extreme and there are enough boneheads who don't think they will actually follow through on those principles and are shocked when they do exactly what they say they will.

How, how in God's name is that possible? Do the British people have a collective impulse toward self-destruction? Or are all your other parties just that shit?

Simple: As I said when the Tory leadership race was on - It'll be Theresa May because she casts an illusion of competence in a sea of tossers. At the time the party had the options of her, an authoritarian Home Secretary who had survived in what is traditionally a revolving door posting. Andrea Leadsome who was...specical in her own way or Michael fucking Gove

Now apply that principle on the national level, in light of the current opposition Jeremy Corbyn - popular with the grassroots, but utterly despised by the bulk of the parliamentary Labour Party - can't organise a piss up in a vegan brewery.

Yeah, she obviously has a higher chance of gaining than losing out here if she successfully manages to frame this in the light of Brexit.

The thing is though, all she could gain is a few more seats in parliament and pushing the next election to 2022; whilst what she could lose is her majority in Parliament or worse her role as Prime Minister. The latter would also probably unify Labour somewhat, making it more difficult for her successor to win in 2022. So you'd have to weight the chance of success against the risk if it goes wrong.

If she doesn't successfully frame this in the light of Brexit she might be in trouble, because Labour clearly isn't and she could lose ground on other issues if she isn't the one focusing on them.